Ways & Means debates amendment to S‑one 27 on housing infrastructure, electricity, 51% floor‑area and 'but‑for' test

Members of the Vermont House Ways & Means committee discussed an amendment to “S‑one 27” that would (1) expand eligible housing improvements to include electric infrastructure, (2) lower the minimum usable floor‑area threshold for reuse to 51% from a higher level cited in committee, and (3) remove a statutory "but‑for" test and its associated rulemaking directive.

The amendment was presented to the committee on behalf of the Rural Caucus and was described by proponents as a set of targeted changes that reflect priorities gathered from caucus members. Proponents said adding electric upgrades is important for rural utilities and for the viability of housing projects, and that a lower floor‑area threshold would allow adaptive reuse of existing “white elephant” municipal and school buildings. They argued the "but‑for" test — a requirement that applicants show that state support is necessary for a project to proceed — adds complexity that can block projects in rural areas.

A member identified as Representative Nelson urged retaining the "but‑for" language, saying the test helps force applicants to "get all one's ducks in a row and clearly articulate why they want to do what they want to do." Representative Jennifer Rosato Perea questioned the amendment’s removal of the test, saying the housing infrastructure agreements already require applicants to "outline all of the costs and all of the structure" and that such detail should make clear whether supplemental financing is needed: "It would seem to me that the information would all be there," she said.

Other committee members described the complexity of tax‑increment or similar financing tools and raised the alternative of direct grants. Committee members noted budget constraints and said some caucus members favor grant programs rather than a complex financing mechanism, but proponents said they are working in a tight budget environment and that the amendment is intended to improve the functioning of the proposed program in smaller communities.

The committee recorded a straw poll on a motion to find the amendment unfavorable; the clerk reported the straw poll as "09:25" in the meeting record. No final, binding committee vote on the amendment was completed in the transcript segment provided; members said they expected to reconvene work after the floor and to return to related items the next day.

The discussion included thanks to the author of an earlier amendment for changes to location criteria and for removing a previously included provision; proponents said those changes were meaningful. Committee members repeatedly framed the debate around the housing shortage in rural Vermont, differing views about necessary administrative guardrails, and concerns that overly complex requirements will disadvantage smaller towns and rural electric cooperatives.

The committee had several procedural notes and scheduling items at the meeting’s start and end, and members asked colleagues to return promptly after floor action to continue work on this and related bills.